IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Appellant
Versus
HEMANT RAO SONTEKE – Respondent
WA/110/2026
##PAGE1##
1
2026:CGHC:6455-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
W.A No.110 of 2026
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department Of
Forest Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Raipur
Chhattisgarh (Respondent No.1)
2 - Principal Chief Conservator Forest Head Quarter Jail Road
Raipur, Chhattisgarh, (Respondent No.2)
3 - Chief Conservator Of Forest Durg Circle Durg, District- Durg
Chhattisgarh (Respondent No.3)
4 - Divisional Forest Officer Rajnandgaon District- Rajnandgaon
Chhattisgarh, (Respondent No.4)
5 - Chairman Scrutiny Committee Manpur/ Divisional Forest Officer
SISTLA
NEELIMA Forest Division Rajnandgaon District- Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh,
VISHNU PRIYA
(Respondent No.5)
Digitally signed by
SISTLA NEELIMA
VISHNU PRIYA
Date: 2026.02.06
10:56:32 +0530
6 - Under Secretary State Of C.G. Department Of Forest
##PAGE2##2
Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District-
Raipur Chhattisgarh, (Respondent No.6) ... Appellants
versus
Hemant Rao Sonteke S/o Late Shri N.B. Sonteke Aged About 50
Years R/o Sadhu Chal Tulsipur Ward No.18 Budh Vihar Gali No.01,
District- Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh(Petitioner) ... Respondent
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellants/State : Mr. Prasoon Bhaduri, Dy. Advocate
General.
For Respondent : None.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
05.02.2026
1. Heard Mr. Prasoon Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate
General appearing for the State/Appellants on IA No.01/2026,
which is an application for condonation of delay.
2. Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the
State/Appellants submits that the learned Single, Judge on
17.07.2025, passed the impugned order of allowing WPS No.
2465/2020. Thereafter, the Department of Forest had sought an
opinion from the office of the Advocate General vide letter dated
##PAGE3##3
21.08.2025 upon which, the Office of the Advocate General vide its
letter dated 07.10.2025, has accorded opinion for filing Appeal and
thereafter on 07.11.2025, Department of Forest sought permission
from the Department of Law and Legislative Affairs for the same
and accordingly, sanction for filing Appeal has been accorded on
25.11.2025 and thereafter OIC was appointed vide order dated
27.11.2025 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Forest, Rajnandgaon and
the present Appeal is being drafted and filed before this Hon’ble
Court.
3. It is contended that despite obtaining the requisite
documents and information relating to the case, a delay occurred
on account of compliance with departmental formalities and the
functioning of the Government machinery, the State Government
being a multifunctional body that may require additional time for
completion of such procedures. Consequently, in certain cases,
the State is prevented from filing the matter within the prescribed
period of limitation, which is bona fide and not deliberate. The
present Appeal has, therefore, been filed with a delay of 131 days
beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Reliance has been
placed upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the matter of State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and others,
reported in (1996) 3 SCC 132 to buttress his submissions. As
such, the learned State Counsel prays that the delay of 131 days in
##PAGE4##4
preferring the Appeal may be condoned.
4. Thus, the limited issue for determination is whether the delay
of 131 days in preferring the present Writ Appeal deserves to be
condoned in exercise of powers under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act.
5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Postmaster
General and others v. Living Media India Limited and another,
reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563, has dealt with the limitation issue
and held as under:-
“27. It is not in dispute that the person(s)
concerned were well aware or conversant with the
issues involved
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.